Ok, then I see what you are saying.
You mean if the Iranian suddenly changed attitude and became US allies, it would be ok for them to have a nuclear bomb?
See that kind of mentality is the problem in my opinion. Maybe that is why the Iranians diss the US everytime.
I didn't say that every pakistani was a terrorist, I just pointed out that you said you said you were worried that a bomb might find its way in to a terrorist organizations hands, and that there are no terrorist organizations in Iran but there are some in Pakistan. I was merely pointing out that you worried about the wrong country.

I don't see why this war has to drag on any longer then it already has. The way I see it is hypothetically speaking of course that any and everyone could potentially be a terrorist even in the US, so it's impossible to stop every single one only to slow them down. If you strike enough fear into the potentials then maybe they'll reconsider what they had planned that‘s what I think they had that in mind from the start. However to stop terrorism as a whole would be a foolish thought and anyone who disagrees is only deluding themselves.

Would you trust an enemy if he suddenly say he is a good guy? Maybe it is possible to Iran turn into a US ally, but it would require a massive change in the government and in the Iranians mentality, cause most probably hate US. But it won't happen.

Of course it won't, I was just pointing out the fallacy in that logic.
Most people hate the US? That is not true. Well maybe they hate the US more now compared to the time Clinton was president but I doubt that is true. I would say around 50% like the US, 25% don't have an opinion and 25% hate. That was more around 70-15-15 before when clinton was in charge.

Yes that logic is faulty and i did not used it. Again, just because there are pakistani terrorists doesn't mean that all of them are terrorists, specially if the government don't support it.

You are correct, but when has an Iranian citizen done a terrorist act against any other country?

edit : oh I mean a proven one, not a terrorist act that is alleged to an Iranian.

gorgepir in your honest opinion what do you think was the reason of the sudden hate for the US between Bill Clinton and George W Bush Presidency?

Edit: Reworded

Well the way I see it, during Bill Clinton's times there was a huge improvement in the relations. The Iranians began working towards democracy (slowly I might add) and the US began easing sanctions (they removed the sanctions on drugs and food for example) and even accepted responsibility for a coup that removed a democratic goverment in Iran about 50 years ago (one of the few democratic governments).
Then suddenly George Bush comes. After the 9,11 attacks Iran was one of the first (if not first) countries to condemn the attack. The president at the time (Khatami) was trying to show to the other branches of the government that we don't need confrontation and we can live peacfully with others. When the United States attacked Afghanistan, they attacked via air, while Iran provided the support for the ground operations. They even worked together at that point. Everything was getting better, suddenly George Bush said (and I really don't know why) that Iran belonged to the Axis of Evil. Sure they were bad before but they were getting better and co-operating. After that everyone began to redicule Khatami and when his presidency ended, a (idiot) become the next president with promises to improve the economy (which he failed).
The main difference I see with Bush and Clinton was that with Clinton we had a chance to end this, but Bush needed an enemy so he made Iran to be that enemy.

Therefore the cause for the hatred now is that we were moving towards democracy, and when Bush announced us part of the Axis of Evil it ended all our hopes to become a democracy because the hardliners came back.

We have had this topic before, but USA isn't going to attack Iran. Comparing Iran and Iraq would be accurate when you remenber that Iran is a lot bigger than Iraq, and USA knew what kind of weaponery Iraq had. This isn't the same situatian with Iran, who have had to make its own weapons and buy weapons tech from the russians and chinese. And as said, some experts say that Iran would easilly wipe out the whole USAn fleet what they have for gulf of Persia. So Iran have a little better weaponery than Iraq had and the USAns doesn't really know what they have.
Now, USA had support from other countries with Afghanistan and Iraq, but Iraq have caused a political grave for many politicans in Europe and i doubt the new ones want to dig their graves, so USA would be more or less alone with their quest.

The real reason why Iran is part of the "Axis of evil", is because, like Iraq, Iran as a OPEC member wants to trade oil in Euros, meaning that they would trade with more stable currency and that doesn't fit for USA.

Having a nuclear weapon would mean that USA would have to be friends with you, they don't really fuck with the countries with nukes.

I am against Iran having nukes, but i also am against any other country having nukes, even the existing ones. So Iran having nuke isn't any worse than China, USA or France having one

"If you strike enough fear into the potentials then maybe they'll reconsider what they had planned that‘s what I think they had that in mind from the start. "

That sentence struck me so hard that i just had to reply to it. After all, it's quite a common sentiment, and frankly its frightening how many people think like that. (not saying you do shade, but there are many who do)

The main roots of terrorism are unstable/poverty stricken governments and extremeist beliefes as far as i can see. Flexing your muscles and trying to frighten terrorism is going to have the opposite effect to helping. Extremeist oppinion only fuels more extremeist oppinions, and believeing in something as black and white as going over seas to kill terrorists, will only fuel terrorism. Violence begets violence.

In order to combat terrorism firs world countries would have to actually try and help underdeveloped countries, rather thna hording all the money to themselves, and the people of firs world countries would need to develope healthy, educted world views. This would lead the way to a better global comunity, buts its only gonna happenin an ideal world.

In the end a favourite quote of mine sums it up well.

Making war for pace is like having sex for virginity.

Peace out.